Well your post is that the problem lies with the cops. Nevermind what this guy did, the problem is always with the cops. Look the cops can't stop
everything, nor do they try to, because that would severely limit our liberties. The only problem I see here is with this guy, and they took care of
him. Problem solved.

It looks like your ignoring what I'm saying and trying to turn this into a cop hating debate.

I think it's quite obvious that car jacking is wrong and there is no debate to be had on that. All I'm saying is there is room for improvement in how
cops handle situations like this, and I gave my suggestions, and that also can be improved upon.

I would also expect his family to foot the bill for my car and I would also sue the family for pain, suffering, damages. Carjacking is a very violent
and traumatizing experience and this guy got off too easy, maybe they should have shot him in the spine to paralyze him or something and dump him
somewhere in the desert.

I would also expect his family to foot the bill for my car and I would also sue the family for pain, suffering, damages. Carjacking is a very violent
and traumatizing experience and this guy got off too easy, maybe they should have shot him in the spine to paralyze him or something and dump him
somewhere in the desert.

Hey I can "understand" your view on wanting to kill a thief. Although unnecessary barbaric.

But suing the family? Even after he died, that's illogical and not cool man.

If you dont want the Police to shot you dont Pull, a gun after leading them on a chase for over an hour!
With that being said, this is another prime example of why didnt the police use NoN leathel force, such as Bean bags and or Stun grenades, Pepper
spray?

But in the end we where not there and the Video from the Helicopter does not provide the veiw we need to determine if this was a justified killing.

Just sad for both sides involved IMO, the victims Family & the Officers who had to take a life!

The moment he stopped where he stopped, right next to the bystander, he sealed his fate. In my opinion based on the article / video it looked
justified to me. The investigation into the officers use of force will be done and it goes from there.

questions?

Xcat, last time I checked, carjacking someone at gunpoint (while not a sign of goodwill) does not carry with it the sentence of death at gunpoint. In
fact, it carries a jail sentence.

So....

Given that the gentleman on the video stated the suspect aimed his gun at people in the store, the reasoning for the cops to open fire, was because
of that. Either he did or he didn't.

If he did, he was committing suicide. If he didn't, he should have been apprehended and saw justice in the court.

The moment he stopped where he stopped, right next to the bystander, he sealed his fate. In my opinion based on the article / video it looked
justified to me. The investigation into the officers use of force will be done and it goes from there.

questions?

Xcat, last time I checked, carjacking someone at gunpoint (while not a sign of goodwill) does not carry with it the sentence of death at gunpoint. In
fact, it carries a jail sentence.

So....

Given that the gentleman on the video stated the suspect aimed his gun at people in the store, the reasoning for the cops to open fire, was because
of that. Either he did or he didn't.

If he did, he was committing suicide. If he didn't, he should have been apprehended and saw justice in the court.

Any questions?

edit on 24-2-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)

Your right before any action is taken someone should sit through a trial to determine whether or not they are in the wrong. If someone decides to go
on a shooting rampage, cops will just wait until he's done, and when he's ready they'll cuff him. But if he decides to run or whatever, he should
be able to, because of course he hasn't been convicted of a crime yet. Makes a lot of sense.....

Your right before any action is taken someone should sit through a trial to determine whether or not they are in the wrong. If someone decides to go
on a shooting rampage, cops will just wait until he's done, and when he's ready they'll cuff him. But if he decides to run or whatever, he should be
able to, because of course he hasn't been convicted of a crime yet. Makes a lot of sense.....

Please show me where this person went on a shooting rampage? Xcat knows full well there are people that use weapons for intimidation and there are
people that use weapons to harm others.

My reply wasn't to you.

But then you went and took me out of context.

Had the person fired a shot or gone on a shooting rampage, there would be no question as to whether or not the officers were justified.

A spokesperson came on TV and said the suspect aimed a gun at people in the store and that was the justification for the shooting. Now that has to be
looked into. If the suspect didn't aim the gun at someone, it wasn't justified. (Or perhaps there was another reason, in which case the guy on camera
should have kept his mouth shut until all the facts were in...)

Your right before any action is taken someone should sit through a trial to determine whether or not they are in the wrong. If someone decides to go
on a shooting rampage, cops will just wait until he's done, and when he's ready they'll cuff him. But if he decides to run or whatever, he should
be able to, because of course he hasn't been convicted of a crime yet. Makes a lot of sense.....

Please show me where this person went on a shooting rampage? Xcat knows full well there are people that use weapons for intimidation and there are
people that use weapons to harm others.

My reply wasn't to you.

But then you went and took me out of context.

Had the person fired a shot or gone on a shooting rampage, there would be no question as to whether or not the officers were justified.

A spokesperson came on TV and said the suspect aimed a gun at people in the store and that was the justification for the shooting. Now that has to be
looked into. If the suspect didn't aim the gun at someone, it wasn't justified. (Or perhaps there was another reason, in which case the guy on
camera should have kept his mouth shut until all the facts were in...)

edit on 24-2-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)

So he's just holding the gun, and not responding, is that justified. It seems you have to kill someone before it's justified.

So he's just holding the gun, and not responding, is that justified. It seems you have to kill someone before it's justified.

You could tell he wasn't responding from that video? I couldn't see anything in the car, could you?

I saw a citizen rolling around on the ground while police surrounded the car of the suspect. I would have been more impressed with the officers
actions if one of them put themselves in between the citizen and the suspect's car.

So he's just holding the gun, and not responding, is that justified. It seems you have to kill someone before it's justified.

You could tell he wasn't responding from that video? I couldn't see anything in the car, could you?

I saw a citizen rolling around on the ground while police surrounded the car of the suspect. I would have been more impressed with the officers
actions if one of them put themselves in between the citizen and the suspect's car.

But doing that may have provoked the situation further, may have caused the suspect to start firing, then we'd all be on here criticizing the cop for
being so stupid. It doesn't matter what the cop does, it always seems he did something wrong, and at the same time we downplay what this guy was
doing to garner all of the attention. All the danger of that day traces back to what this guy did, not the cops.

Over a half a dozen cops unload their pistols into a car and you think it is automatically justified? Whether it is or it isn't, it still needs to be
reviewed and it isn't something to be taken lightly.

It's not about bashing here, it's whether or not they are doing their job properly as they are protecting the people. If it is automatic (Standard)
to shoot someone when they are assumed to have a gun or they do have one, there will be cases where it was mistaken someone had one, or perhaps they
had one but had one legally.

Any decent cop will tell you the idea is not to put someone down either, the goal is to arrest them without injury to the officer or the suspect. So I
don't understand how people can jump up and say "great" when someone is killed. That isn't the idea. Nor is it supposed to be.

It would be interesting to see video from security cams or cruiser cams. I did notice the police cars were pulled behind in such a way that the cams
are likely of no use. I do not condone criminal activity but if the guy did not threaten with deadly force, then it is death penilty for car theft, no
judge, no jury and no due process! I hope there is an in-depth investigation.

Over a half a dozen cops unload their pistols into a car and you think it is automatically justified? Whether it is or it isn't, it still needs to be
reviewed and it isn't something to be taken lightly.

It's not about bashing here, it's whether or not they are doing their job properly as they are protecting the people. If it is automatic (Standard)
to shoot someone when they are assumed to have a gun or they do have one, there will be cases where it was mistaken someone had one, or perhaps they
had one but had one legally.

Any decent cop will tell you the idea is not to put someone down either, the goal is to arrest them without injury to the officer or the suspect. So I
don't understand how people can jump up and say "great" when someone is killed. That isn't the idea. Nor is it supposed to be.

No it is not bashing it
is your perspective.

I do not find it anything good
about this situation.

It is a sad event. With that said
I believe the guy should of thrown
his hands and arms out the window when he stopped.
In my opinion he was going for suicide by cop.
A person in crime knows the street laws.
If he wanted to not be shot he would of
followed the protocol of putting his hands and arms
out where they could see them..

The suspect was no shot and killed because he hijacked a car.
The suspect was not shot and killed because he hijacked a second car.
The suspect was not shot and killed because he used a gun during the 2 car jackings.
The suspect was not shot and killed because of the high speed pursuit.
The Suspect was not shot and killed for stopping in the middle of a busy downtown street while brandishing a gun
The Suspect was not shot and killed for stopping at the gas station.

The list above doesn't even cover the traffic violations for speeding, driving on the wrong side of the road, failing to stop and stop light / signs,
improper lane charges, failing to signal when turning. Its looking like every single act he committed is at the felony level, with the exception of
the traffic violations (except resisting arrest by fleeing).

The Police, taking all the info (totality of circumstance) from start to finish, supports the decision to use deadly force. When the suspect got out
of his car and approached the guy filling up his tank, that persons life was in danger, and that view can be supported by the suspects prior behavior
with 2 carjackings.

The suspect had more than ample time to decide how this incident was going to end. He could have easily just stayed home and watched tv. Instead he
decided to go on a crime spree. During the spree he had many many opportunities to stop the car and surrender,

After an hour and ending up at the gas station, the suspect still had a chance to end the situation peacefully. He decided his own fate at the very
last second by not complying with verbal commands to surrender.

Boncho - keep in mind use of force for an officer is reviewed from the officers perspective and not 20/20 hindsight. Its what did the officer perceive
at the exact moment force was used (I know people hate that but it is the standard).

Had I been the officer present, based on all the info, I would have fired as well. The suspect already established he was not going to go peacefully
by all of his actions. At the Gas station, with the vehicle stopped and light pedestrian / motor traffic, was the ideal / safest time and place to end
the encounter.

He was a danger to the public at large... That danger had to be stopped, either by his own actions, or by the officers.

The suspect made his decision.

If you want more specifics let me know and I can throw some California law at ya

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
The guy deserved to get shot like that. If my car was stolen I would expect the police to do nothing less. With him dead I will not have to pay for
him in jail.

Secondly was he illegal?

If someone stole my car, I wouldn't expect or want him to die, and I would not feel "satisfied" that he did die.
But I'm not American you see....oops!

We're tired of our tax dollars keeping quasi-humans like that breathing our oxygen.
Those bullets are far cheaper than paying for him to have 3 squares, watching HBO
& lifting weights. Good riddance & I hope to see this sort of outcome daily.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.